The Sun. — London, England, 1838-07-27 00:00:00

think that Ruch exclusion would be tant4.ri .unt to a d..elara (" ion that Parliament positively rtAvsed all interpo:iti9n.— ear.) If, thorefore, I bad voted with the Hon. Gentleman, " decid miglitt have d one , I s h ou ld form 111 y alit! irrevocably hav e ed the question. CI Mr. HUME—Not if y ou acce d e to the reform of th e nrch• Sir R. PEEL—WeII, if the Hon. Member means by re form of the Church the aholitien of sinecures where gk!ch exist if h e mean the abolition of pluralities on the system Pursued in England; if by reform of the Churc han eq ua li zation of incomes, all I can say is hates all th meat, at I :shall most w illi ngly agree, in as far as it will not int o O' er , wi hu rc th thh. e integrity o f w h at st il l remains of the property of the more than that I will not consent to. —( Hear. hear ) But I will not consent to the alienation of Church property. -- (Hear, hear.) I wi ll not consent to any violation of the prineiple of an Establishment—( Hear, hea )—but this I will (le, that if you prove to me that in Ireland there are districts wshere the working minister is badly paid, and that there are either districts in which he Las too much, I will consent to e valization, a n d I s h a ll d o so with no other v:.ess• than to effect what will best conduce to the soititual and ,oral i nterests i nterests of the Church. I cannot exclude from rril consideration the whole circumstertces—l cannot ex clude from it the position 'if the clergy with respect to Go vernment —and I must say that the opinions we have heard eexpressed by members of the Qovernment increase the diffi tilty,n.,( enforce the law, Hear.) My own ce t ;inion is that active interference on the part of Governmen t , backed by a determination to would leo completely effectual,-_( Hear, hear.) But at the same tirre e , I cannot omit from my consideration that if Governmeo'. does not entertain this opinion, and that rxr:eaerirlLeg m embers " rjf it (Hear, h ea profess an opp os it e p r i nc i p l e , i t w ill be d',fficult to enf orce t h e r i g h ts o f t h e Ch urc h . _ - ie ) Independently of this, I must consider the in divil;ual 'scants of the Iri s h Cl ergy , an d t h e permanent i nte. rests Church 'So much e individual intereets of t he Clergy. For the general inte c rest of the Church. I should t a e that the new system admitted conversion into rent charge, 'tinder circumstances most likely to prejudice those interests. ththe n ort h of Ireland the landlords have already undertaken e collection of tithes, so that it is in the south the new law k vil prin c i pally operate. In the south the arrears are d uel I should then have contemporaneously a conver -1400 of composition into rent charge, and a general ap Peal to the law. I retain all my objectio to the , Principles involved in this clause, namely, thenabandon tilltient of l ega l right, and a refusal to enforce the law ; but, Zader conferring with t h ose b est qualified to judge, and having re s li t e°d°, p fi p n o d r i t n u g n ity of conferring immediately with those in no one willing to take upon himself the re_ '',Ponsibility of rejection, I am placed in the painful situation i of being obliged to select amongst the numerous existing . d ffi enities the one i.rist pregnant with danger to the intetroesttshel -4nl desirous to protect. I cannot, therefore, consent_ tot a l e xelnsion of the clause from the Bill—l can th n e o r t e a f l o t r o e g , e c t o h n e - r 141 / 4 ndoto the hope of a pecuniary provision. _ I,_ _ se nt to the clause, thinking that the principle is not finally determined by its adoption on the present occasion. ° , Sir %r SOMERVILLE had been so pointedly alluded to Y the Right Hon. Baronet that he could not refrain from one or two observations. His meaning was, that he hoped that if this measure were passed, agitation would cease ; but That if not,•although a member of Established Church, he 'would assist them in their agitation. Mr. HARVEY said that th.e Right Hon Baronet asserted that nothing would satisfy the opponents of the present Bill but the substitution of the voluntary principle. He (Mr. Harvey) never hnStrd of such a proposition, or that they could see no improvtment except in the overthrow of the Eitablish lnent. Ilin• Right Honourable Baronet had an easier remedy '—he would give the million, arid postpone the amelioration to 4 future day. They might fancy they were only giving one luil ion. but he could prove the question involved four mil lions of public property. They were about to allow the landlord twenty-five per cent for collection, and this, allow ing tithes to be worth twenty years' purchase, would give a total of three millions.—( Hear, hear.) A Noble Lord, whose speech could not be sufficiently praised, or at least some Mem ber of the Cabinet, had intimated that some plan might at a futur e day b e proposed for paying the Catholic Priests. He (Mr. Nerve)) did not think that, although those gentlemen tnight via at first b e coy , t h ey would ultimately refuse such pro ion. Well, if such a project were to come forward, where Wes the money to come from ? Not from the Protestant ele rgY• No ; but, for sake of the peace of Ireland, for the Purpos e of putting down agitation, another demand would be Theasiedrei,numpon the pocket of England. He had no hesitation in his opposition to the Bill on various grounds, but his rrincipal reason for opposing it was, that that was a gross de lusion to sup ose or to hope that it would procure peace for re bind, and p therefore the money about to be given for the purchase ofpeaCe would . be only thrown away.--( Hear, hear.) ;, generou s p eop l e like the Irish should not b e t reate d i n 1,1":, manner in which it was proposed to tr ea t t h em by this - All It was an insult to suppose that th e y wou ld be willing thPasties to such a bargain as the Bill proposed. It . was not e amount of the tithes to which the Irish . people objected so u t e t , uas to the gross and mighty injustice . of imposing ... upon Church- • the Church of a miserable minority, Imposing a z in st the doctrines of which they did not concur, upon a Mete who, under the most trying circumstances, so rigidly ad hered to th e f a ith o f t h e i r fore f at h ers. He was the more ib nv ineed that this opi n i on was correct when he considered e trivial amount of the ti t h es i n I re l an d . la England the tithe, on an average, amounted to five shillings per acre. whilst in Ireland it only averaged fifteen-pence, and was (Ike under a shilling. In England the tithe sometimes amoun t s to s. per acre. He did not see that the Catholics of Ireland } radio tronger_ grounds in a pecuniary point of view, nor indeed in any other than the English Dissenters had, for refusing to pay tithes. Though the Catholic dissented from .cEpiscopalian doctrines he was the discil of an Ehed _hurch, and would do all in his power t p o e establish Established hi a blis s own. This was not the case with the Dissenter, who was distinctly _Disposed to all Church Establishments, no matter whether they lamwee Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, or Presbyterian. Why, ed as there no proposition made by Government, and as -s:heto by the other side, to pay the arrears of English tithe? present proposition were agreed to, did Hon. Gentle ezu n imagine that the principle contained in it would not be ;?titagious, and extend to this country also. The English Z_u_issenters, and the English people generally, would ask i lly the burthen of Irish tithe arrears should be thrown upon the e m* and what reason there was why they should not have e ar ;',, dv antages of a similar concession —( Hear, hear.) So e s ",',en from settling the question of tithes, the present Bill f orward establish a precedent of which those who brought it ev r ",ard did not foresee the consequences. Ile would con prttoue by again expressing it as his firm conviction that the _iu..PDand measure would be utterly inoperative as a final ad "truent of the question.—( Hear.) yon S TANLEY said that the charge which his Right y on. Friend, the Member for Tamworth, made against the when' Gentleman who last addressed the House, and those that Itdopted the same views with the Hon. Gentleman, was vr a , ;was very easy for them to cavil with any course which tittestaiuopted for the adjustment of this important and difficult te ren eu enthat it was easy for them to take occasion of dif preo_e!, arid take technical and theoretical objections to any tiento%l6on which had for its object the adjustment of a ques etd,i_ the sol ut i on of which was surrounded with great diffi for4lB.,, whilst a t t h e same time they abstained from bringing (ch eer any feasible and practical proposition of their own.— tith e -, s t ,' ) When the Hon. G, ntleman asserted that the th e 4 1 -n g l 'ud amounted to five shillings per acre, and that , rr esrs ,„,. , ;tads eenitrni eeto,:wsealaynd amounted to more taan two . millions, it stsertie re ignoraric i e vh of eth th e e r s s u u b c j h ect s , tatements indicated toot' or a reckless disregard of ito Nir nit with respect to all circumstances connected with the lio,h t ) : l ; he The ii !;,rnounted to 2,400 00 0 1. Hon. Gentleman had stated that the arrears of Mr. the 4 RVEY • e ai,. s ., tio , Ks we understood, Lord ST"; Than was, ,4NLEY said the argument of the Hon. Gentle full fo r tin " la t if Government agreed to give compensation in Would , art if 3 of tithes due, that compensation being full shoei n 4 , lll° , l-1 ." tD 2 ,400,0001., and he illustrated the case by ntily 4n b tilat the compens ttion prop .sed to be given would rdet or 'e,u , t to 2s. 6d. in the pound. Now, what vas the real if P a id t" ease? The lion. Gentleman states that the arrears IVE;,in full by the Government, would amoui.t to 2,400,0001. ),, Titlat would exceed the whole amount of tithe due and p lan , for the whole four years, even on the lion. Gentle -I,,h4'S own showing. Now, what he ( Lord Stanley) and those ° 4 gre e d t the measure proposed to meet, was the portion of 0.. . o . ~ t' tithe only which remained unpaid as chargeable upon the i i ° i" cl 'hiers.—( Hear) 0 f the whole of the arrears at present due, th is least one haf was payable by the landlords, and with 1,,,' Portion it was not proposed to deal. The half payable t ii, , t he tenant was the only portion with which it tees proposed h e d e l by th e Bill; and even from this portion there was to i,;, tUe'ucted ell the cases in which suits had already been te s n ' e , ut ed for the recovery. These things being taken into p,s'.',"eration, the whole amount of the arrears could not by /10,;litY amount to one-fourth of the sum named by the re o - 11 ', M ember for Southwark. The Hon. Gentleman turned y u °II the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth, and said, t hat ar e one of those who support the measure on the ground si, e, ) t . l ott see in it a likely prospect of adjusting the tithe ques vsith ji d yet how singular, how extraordinaty it is, that you loch Your ingenuity, did not contrive to incorporate some forw4r2POSal uitli any of the measures which yeti brought q e ,,, lr u_H)r the acljultment of the question." Surd). the Hoe. vi iia 0 7411 . was in the House in 1835. Now, what provision due s i b e in the present Bill which was nut in the Bill intro- Co e of 3 . 7 his Right lion. Friend is 1835? Was the conver- W as t ithe into a rent charge rot contained in that Bill ? te r ., ult the deduction of 25 firer cent. included in the mea . e a ria did • ali et t it not also contai n a similar provision with re ture, ° the arrears ?—( Loud cheers ) The then leading fea st bi,,etsntained in the present Bill ware conteinecl in the Bill tier 'e.,',",!ght lion Ftiend ; arid that Bill, but for the opposi olw 1 7 ,, , . sti to it by lioneureble Gentlemen opposite, would in s , e e the law o 4 ' the Isnd e .) The • - •— Repeated ant continued cheer oe e• Honourable Member for Southwark accused those id)l.;;st_ (Lord Stanley's) side of the House of defending the co rps of the Church, and countenancing its enormcus eine erre'__., Ile accused his Right Hen. Friend of admitting the th ots " r ilY of reform, and yet of not endeavouring to marry ~i tiiv _ !forms into effect. Now he (Lord Stanley), and those or in wu ern he acted, were not so vague either in profession %.,tr'c.Prat,ice es the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for South ( 1,, r , ~.`4 ere they content with vague generalities ? He ha, manley), nn later than two years ago, moved a i tit a 1 , 0 effect 'those objects, in which he entered very largely f ur s ' et ails, and it was very probable that the Hon. Member fet e e eu thwark was one of those by whose votes leave was re ,teAs for the introduction of the Bill.—( Loud cheers.) The beelt're which he then introduced was one which would have k se ._,Passed in another place ; but the House of Commons se ) `'Q to take it into consideration._. Renewed cheers.) kr ,.. 41 ,'Y ere hEs answers to the charges of dealing in vague ailttes made by the Honottrablo Gentlemen Lgair.st Lis THE SUN, LONDON, PRIDAY S JULY 27, 183 S Wght Hon. Friend tire Meenber tolt Tamworth. But the Hon. Gentlefnan teuntio*ty " Oh you abandon our osvn end yen.; consent to give up 25 per cent. Of the l'eorte tehich you consider so sacred fdr the lienefii of the lenniord. Here is the principle of Appropriation adopted and enforced in its most ok;ectionable shape." He (Lord Stanley) denied that t!'.e principle of appropriation was adopted in con sent!ng to )ield the 25 per cent. What was it that turned his kight Hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth out of office in 1835 ? Was it the 25 per cent. ? Was that appropriation, or was it then considered so?—(" Hear, hear,"and cheers.) No; for his night Honourable Friend had proposed the reduction of 25 per cent. on condition that the tithes should be fixed upon the owner of the land in the shape of a rent-charge. Was this the appropriation which caused the `range in the Administration ? His Right Honourable Friend proposed to charge the landlord with what had been theretofore paid by the tenant. He himself ( Lord Stanley) had proposed 15 per cent, as what should be allowed in consideration of the change in a former Bill which he brought in upon the subject. Was that at the time considered appro priation ?—( Hear, hear ) If so, why was he not now a Member of the present Government?—( Loud cheers) Lord Hatherton, in 1834, proposed a measure making it compul sory on the landlords to compound for the tithes, and offered the same reduction which he (Lord Stanley) proposed to give in 1832. Was the appropriation principle to be found there ? —( Hear, hear.) No, and it was freely admitted the other night by the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the appropriation was never brought forward by any other than the present Government. —( !leer, hear, and cheers.) The proposition now made was to place the payment of the tithe upon the Protestant landlords and take it of the Catholic tenantry ; and could this be called asserting the principle of appropriation ? The question was not one of appropriation. But what had the landlord a right to receive in consideration of the change which was about to be made.—(hear, hear.) Ministers proposed to grant the sum of 25 per cent., which was a larger amount than he (Lord Staeley) thought they had a right to receive. But whatever might be his individual opinion, he felt himself, under all the circumstances of the case, and with a view to bringing this great question to an ad justment, bound to defer to the general opinion expressed by the great body of the Legislature in favour of the larger de duction. The Hon. Member for Southwark argued that the proposition to forego the million would not finally be produc tive of peace in Ireland. He (Lord Stanley) was ready to admit it. He never intended to argue that it would, in itself, be productive of peace, but it would be subsidiary to the great object of the Bill, the intention of which was to transfer the liability for the payment of tithes from the poor tenant to the solvent laudlord—from the man, who, perhaps, had scrupulous objections to the payment of tithes on religious grounds to the landlord, who, if he were a Protestant, could entertain no such objection. Now, he would ask, would the Hon. Member for Southwark enforce the arrears ? In what way would he enforce them? Would be come down on both the defaulting tenants and the landlords? Would he assist the Clergy in collecting their arrears, or would he abolish the arrears altogether, and make no compensation for the Clergy ? Let the supporters of abstract principles say what other course they would pursue. There was one other proposition, namely, that made by his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, which em braced the voluntary principle.—( Hear, hear.) But that had been rejected by the House. It could not be denied that there was a violation of the principle of property in making the com pensation compulsory, but he had objected to this, and had, with his Righ Honourable Friend ( Sir Robert Peel), endea voured to introduce the clause which left the matter open to voluntary adjustment. None of the responsibility attaching to this violation, therefore, rested either on him or on his Right Hon. Friend —( Hear.) He was aware that there were many on his (the Opposition) side of the [louse who thought that assenting to the Bill would be a dereliction of duty. He also knew that it might tell better with his constituents to oppose the measure, and made it a trial of strength to overturn the Government, or at least to do all in his power to effect it.— ( Hear, hear.) This would have been easy, but he could not reconcile it to his conscience to adopt a course which would be calculated to obstruct the progress of a measure that pro mised to procure peace for Ireland, and endeavour to perpe tuate disturbances in that country—( Hear.) Mr. HARVEY said the time allowed for explanation would not allow him to answer all the matters which bad been entered into by the Noble Lord, but he would take the op portunity when his Hon. Friend beside him (Mr. Hume) pro posed his amendment. Mr. O'CONNELL had never heard a speech with greater pleasure than that just delivered. He was pleased with it, not so much for the mental power which it exhibited, though that was of a high order, but because he and the Noble Lord for once concurred in opinion. They were agreed that the continuance of the present system with respect to tithes in Ireland would not be persevered in. Could they suppose that an Act of Parliament could blot out the ancient recollection that the property originally belonged to the Catholic Church? It could not, and the recollection would remain for ever. This it was which made the Noble Lord admit that he was compelled to give principle the go-by. He understood the Right Hon. Member fur Tamworth to say that the Bill would be altered elsewhere. If so, what would be its value ? (Loud cheers,) If it were altered in any material point, he trusted that the Government would at once abandon it. The Bill was sufficiently damaged already by keeping in the clause which provided for the continuance of suits already in stituted for the recovery of arrears of tithe. These were the cases which contained the most exciting character. If the Bill were altered in the Lords, as appeared to have been threatened, and the voluntary principle introduced, he, for one, would decidedly vote against it when it came again before them. Much had been said about appropriation, but it should be remembered that the appropriation principle had come be fore them in two shapes. One was for the purpose of useful education ; but the Noble Lord who last spoke and the House confounded them both. sYhen appropriation was spoken of formerly, they meant the good and useful appropriation, and that was the appropriation which the Noble Lord and his friends resisted. What could the Noble Lord with all his talents make of the 25 per cent. to the landlord but a bad appropriation ?—( Hear.) The tithes were to be collected by the Commissioners of the Woods and Forests at 2i per cent., and the remainder of the 25 per cent, went to the landlord. He (Mr. O'Connell) agreed with the Noble Member for Dovvnshire as to the consequences of this measure. There never was a greater blow dealt at the temporalities of the Church than that about to be levelled at it by the present measure. How was it at present in Ireland? Lord Mount cashel, who could not be suspected of any Popish leaning, who had been described as altogether evangelical, had pre sided at a tumultuous anti-tithe meeting—tumultuous, he meant, as regarded the numbers aeeembied.—( Hear, hear.) The gentlemen of the western division of Cork, who were grand officers in the Orange Lodges, when Orange Lodges were in existence—for he was told they were now no more _were combined with the Catholic Clergy and the Catholic people in attending at anti tithe meetings. The battle would soon commence between the landlord and tenant. Some of the landlords would pay the tithe without exacting it again, and others would not. They were about to create a class of White Boys, not known before in Ireland.—( Hear, hear ) The cry of the Church, would not in future be found as available as it was formerly. Electioneering heats and politics were over for sonic time to come yet. The " heavy blow and great discouragement to Protcstantiem," would not be found so useful an instrument as it had hitherto been. It would nut be made of so much avail against him (Mr. O'Con nell) as it had been, for it had been fluil to a sixty-three head-roll. Common sense would return to the people of Et:gland. They %%mild see the policy as well as the justice of doing as they would be done by. They would see that they themselves would not allow the Church of the minority to be cseablished amongst them—that Scotland would not allow it, and that what was fair for England and Scotland. was also fair for Ireland—that the wealthy Protestants of Ireland ought, like the poorer Catholics, to supp .rt the Ministers of their own religion. The Noble Lord the Secretary at War had been taunted with his speech of the ether night. It was a speech founded upon pure principle, and gave good hope that his future career would fulfil its early promise. Sir R. PEEL did not intend to convey any opinion as to what would be done in another place with respect to the optional clause. He merely said that be was sure the friends of the Churce, who were numerous in the other House, would we4lll well the question e 'tether it was better to leave that Church as it now stood, or adopt the present Bill. Mr. O'CONNELL said, that after that explanation it must he manifest he had mistaken the meaning of the R:ght Hon. Baronet. Lord JOHN RUSSELL (who rose amid cries of " Di vide") said that the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had found rudt to a c-rtain extent with the Bill, and his whole speech had a ten lency to convince him (Lord J. Rus sell) more perfectly of what he before believed, n-enely, that a person of any ingenuity would not fed great difficulty in showing that the Bill was contrary in a great degree to the or dinar•y principles upon whi c h L eg i s l at i on i s f oun d e d . Th e Hon. Member for Drogheda had stated that the inclination to support the voluntary principle was general in Ireland, or nearly so, and that at all the public meetings held for the purpose of petitioning against tithes, resolutions had teen passed pledging the 1 eople who were present to the sup r.ort and advocacy of that principle; and, in reference to this it might be objected to them (the Government) that they had not carried out in this Bill their principle of the aperopriation clause. He wculd say, with respect to those objections, that however advantageous the carrying out of that clause might he, or however inclined he might be to support it, he had another view to regard in this Bill, namely—fram ing it in such a manner as would render it probable that it would pass. Were those Gentlemen who objected to the omission of the appropriation clause prepared to say that it would pass the House ?—( Hear, hear.) He (Lord John Russell) hid an option, and he had judged Ineween doing nothing and allowing all the evils which Irelind sustained from the present state of the tithe system to go on in the mean time unchecked, or passing a Bill which, whatever might be its defects, was calculated-to do a great deal of good, and not calculated to produce any evil, and had the great advantage that it was probable it would receive the assent of that House. Lie would again say that the course which be bad adopted was the plain and the right course. The Hon. Member for Drogheda had said the, although he found fault with the Bill, be would not take upon himself the responsibi lity of giving a vote against it. He ( Lord J. Russell) consi dered that such an admission, from a gentleman so well ac quainted with the state of that country, was a strong evidence of the good that it was calculated to effect. The Hon. Mem• ber for London had, with that moderate and dignified tone which characterised him, at the same time made a severe and bitter attack upon them, and bad accused them in this Bill of postponing principle to party. Ho had accused them of tergiversation and inconsistency. The Hun. Member had a right upon this important subject to think for himself ; he had a perfect right to form his own opinion, - but he was not just'. fed ig accusing others, who were - actuated Isy a - lesiA) tc ef• feetuate as much good as was .pr,cticable tier Ireland, of post. poninp,r principle to partk: With respe6t to one Class whe tv4re most vitally coned ned, it hal been universally admitted that their condition would be materially improved. He allu ded to the poorer description of tenaws, the small occupiers. The lion Member for Dublin bad given his opinion Shot in most cases this class of persons would be entirely tree from tithe by this Bill, so that by the admission of this lion. and Learned Gentlemen, and from the evidence of the Bdi i:self, thee could perceive that in this most important ca c they would confer valuable service. It was upon such persons that the tithe at present pressed most heavily, and to relieve them was no small advantage. But had the Bill no other claim upon them ? What, he would ask, would its effects be upon the landowners ? The lion. Member for Southwark had offered some objections upon this subject, but he had been answered so effectually- by the Noble Lord the Member for North Lan cadrire that he would not more fully advert to them. lie would, however, say that there were points of the Noble Lord's observations, in answer to the Hon. Member's objec tions, in - atria he (Lord Jord Russell) did not entirely concur. The case of the landowners was this. Th,..y (the Govern. ment) had no right to tell them that they would place the tithe at 100 per cent. upon them by way of rent-charg e ; but what did they propose to do ? They said that, i n order to justify such an interference upon the part of 134r liament with the rights of private property, they would give him a reduction of 25 per cent. as an equivalent. Th e landlord by this Bill received a very fair c , mir•nsation fur any additional liability which was placed upon them, fur the Bill was a great benefit to them apart from the reduction it effected, inasmuch as their properties would be of more value, and their tenantry better calculated to improve by the peace and tranquillity which it would secure to the country. Per haps the Bill would not have the beneficial effect of re. storing profound forgetfulness of the subject, and prevent ing all further interference with the Church in Ireland ; but if there should be a revival of opposition to the Church, it would be raised not by the poorer classes of occupiers, nor would it partake of the character of physical opposition as at present ; it would necessarily be amongst a higher class, who, from their education, their position, and many other evident circumstances, would oppose the claims of the Church, if they felt so disposed, in a constitutional and peaceful manner, by appealing to Parliament, by the exercise of their constitutional privilege. The Right Hon. Baronet had expressed an opinion that the Lords might interfere with the Bill. So far as related to this vote they could reject it, but, having passed the House, they were not competent to alter it ; their privilege did not reach to that extent. If the Lords did reject that vote, they would, he lead no doubt, have the full approbation of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny ; but he hoped they would consider the benefits that would necessarily accrue from its adoption. It would produce a considerable mitigation of the evils which at present afflict Ireland. It would have the effect of rendering the position of the Church more secure, and the Irish people more easy and tranquil. Major BRYAN should vote for the Bill, not because he thought it capable of putting an end to all the evils of the tithe system, but because it would produce a great deal o good, without going to the full extent. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the third reading l4B For the amendment Majority foe the third rearline- --118 Lord MORPETH and Mr. GOULBURN moved the in. ,reduction of several clauses by way of rider, which were adop'el, and several verbal amendments were introduced into some of the clauses of the Bill ; after which Mr. HUME rose to move that the 38th clause be excluded from the Bill, on the ground of the pu , poscs to which it ap propriated various sums of money, amounting to nearly one million sterling. The Noble Lord opposite (Stanley) had told them that night that he had adopted the principle of ex pediency, because he saw no other principle on which he could support this measure. He begged to call the attention of the Noble Lord to the fact that it was not to the amount of the money that the people of England would object, but to the purposes for which, according to this clause of the Bill, that money was to be applied. When the Noble Lord himself, on a former occasion, brought forward a measure for the reform of the Irish Church, he (Mr. Hume) and others supported it, because it provided for the abolition of the sinecures of that Church. All their hostility was directed against the system on which that Church was supported, and not against the Church itself. The Noble Lord had said that the Hon. Member for Southwark was mistaken as to the amount of the arrears, and that only one quarter of them remained at present unpaid. But if all but that one quarter bad been paid, then he (Mr. Hume) held that the remainder ought also to be paid. Mr. HARVEY could not hear the statement which had been made by so high an authority as the Noble Lord (Stan ley) with reference to the observations which he had addressed to the House that evening to pass uncontradicted. The Noble Lord had imputed to him an ignorance of the subject before the House, because he had said that the arrears due to the tithe-owners in Ireland during the four years preceding the present might amount to 2,400,0001. But he ( Mr. Har vey) had not said it was so. He had only said that the ar rears might amount to that sum_( Hear, hear)—and surely if in 1832, 1833, and 1834 tithes did not exceed 1,000,000/. it was not an unfair inference thst a very much larger amount of tithe would be due at the present time. But if it was only 300,0001. that remained uncollected, then he would say that that sum ought to be collected as well as the rest—( Hear). — and it was a farce, until it was proved that it could not be collected, to call the tithe debtors the poor people of Ire land.---( Hear.) If the state of the law in that country was such that it could not be enforced but at a ruinous expense, was that a reason why they should forego the property in tithe? Why not bring in a Bill to facilitate the collection of tithe?—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord said he supported the Bill because it would tend to the tranquillity of Ireland, - first, by reducing the amount of titbe to be paid by 25 per cent.; and, secondly, by the payment of the arrears. But the arrears were due from those who borrowed the money of this country—( Hear)—and why, if the I ish people were so poor, were the people of England to pay the . debt ?—( Hear.) The Church of Ireland ought to supply the fund out of its own overgrown resources—( Hear)—for it was notorious that the Irish hierarchy possessed upwards of 600,000 of the finest acres in the country, and some of their product ought to be made available in cases of emergency like this. The payment of these arrears ought not to come out of the Treasury of England, which ought not to be robbed for the purpose of paying what was due from the so-called poor of Ireland to the wealthy proprietors of that country. They would next be called upon, he supposed, to pay the debts of persons con tined for debt in Ireland if they sanctioned such a principle as this. Peace neither could, would, nor ought to be purchased at such a price—( Hear)—tend when the Noble Lord a,ked him why he ( fir. Harvey) did not bring in some 8.11 of his own on this subject, let him ask what chance any 11111 would have, even of an introduction into that House for the Reform of the Irish Church, if moved for by a Protestant Dissenter?_ ( Hear, hear.) He would most cordially support the motion of his fic.n. Friend the Member for Kilkenny. The House then divided, when the numbers were— For the clause Against it Majority -57 The Bill then passed. MAILS ON RAILWAYS BILL. On the motion that this Bill he read a third time, Mr. EA ST HO PE felt hound to I;rotest against this Bill. The Bill was totally at variance with the evidence that had been given before the Committee. The tzn.-1, my of the evidence went one way, and the resolutions of the Govern ment on which the Bill was founded went quito in a contrary direction. Mr. LAI3O UC HE R.E brought up a clause, the object of which we understood to be to transf( r all liabilitie3 to lessees of railways during the continuance of their lewe. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. CUSTOMS BILL. On the motion of Mr. P. THOMSON this Bill went through Committee. Clause 10, which gave a power to the Magistrates to inflict additional penalties, was struck out of the 13d1. Clause 11 was struck out. Clauses to 16 were agreed to. On clause 17 being proposed, Lord SANDON asked the Right Hon. Member whether any steps had been taken on the part of our Government to t.rocure a reduction of the heavy port charges now levied on 13,itiih ships catering Spanish pens. Mr. P. THOMSON said that directions had been for warded to our Ambassador at Madrid to inform the Spanish Government that if the charges were not reduced the British Government would be obliged to put in force those powers they possessed with reference to Spanish vessels entering Bri tish ports. . _ _ Tbe remaining clauses 7.Cre then agreed to. On the motion of Mr. P. THOMSON severll new dawn were added to the Bill. The Chairman reported progress, and the House resumed. . GRAND JURY IRELAND BILL. At the suggestion of several Irish Members Lord MOR PETH consented to postpone this Bill until next Session. THE OATHS VALIDITY BILL. This Bill was read a second time. The other Orders of the Day were diFposcd of; and the Ilouse adjourned at Two o'Clock. - HOUSE OF LORDS, itr.r.r 26. The LORD CitaNeELLoa took his seat on the Woolsack at the usual hour. RECOVERY OF TENEMENTS BILL. Lord HATII E RTON gave notice that he would, on Mtn day next, move the second reading of this Bill. prai;l:iins g Lo f : r n a su d t i e se t o h n e t n in p u r a c n s c 7t o e f d t a b p e et s i ,i t i tn tio fr il om aff S oi t d aff e ld t ;hi t r h % British Government in India to Ifindoo idolatry. Several Peers presented petitions to the same effect. Lard WHARNCLIFFE presonted a petition for ae amendment of the New Poor-law Act. The Earl of HADDINGTON presented a petition froM Leeds against the Parliamentary Burghs (Sentland) Bill. CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL Lord MELBOURNE moved the Order ei the Day fir the third r:ading of this Bill. The Bishop of EXETER rose to oppose the further pro gress of this Bill, which he characterised as one of the heaviest blows ever aimed at the Protestant Church cf this cowitry. The Bill proposed to prevent any Ecclesiastical Court, except the Court of Arches in London, from passing any senteree of excommunication or degradation, against the clergy- Now he contended there was au inherent jurisdiction in cry Christian Bishop of which no Legislature could deprive them. The Right Reverend Prelate proceeded to quote texts of Scripture in support of his argument, The Bishops' Courts were rs old as unristiaoity tself. With out depriving a Bishop of his see, human laws could not de rAive ir.in of the right, or ab so l ve hi re from the duty, to excl . - ito the jurisdiction wbich his ceco enj , ALed, and, for himself) he declared solemnly' net Ne should trot feel at liberty fee obey the provisions which this Bill containgd; alanedd it pass into a law. He should ecintintle,in that event, to call upon !he clergy of his diocese to atire'eer to him for any criritef of which 0)67 might be accused; and if a shlhrteunan disobeyed he would pronounce sentence of excommuniCairtht reralnii him. Their Lordships might pass a Bill of Pains and Pcnaillhi against him; they might deprive him of his gown and mitre ; but his " robo and his integrity to heaven," n ) human power should, or could take from him. Never till this hour was it dreamt of that the Metropolitan Archiepiscopal Court had original jurisdiction in any provincial See, elcapt in , he case of a diocesan, or in cases of caches, or fear. But this Bill took a flight of temerity which he should have thought beyond the presumption of the most daring legislators ; the Bill actually subjected to the jurisdiction of the Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury the Archbishopric of York, which was as independent of Canterbury as Canterbury was of York. Had the diocesans of York, agreed to this ? If not, why their Lordships could not surely entertain the Bill for a moment. Even if they had given their assent, why were they not present to state why they dared thus to surrender their rights and abandon their duties? Not one Bishop of the Archdiocese of York was in his place. Even in the reign of Henry VIII., that most virtuous man, Sir Thomas More, though he owned the supremacy of the Pope, had yet too much of the Briton in him to admit the monstrous preteniions of the Legate, that clergymen in d sCnct dioceses were to be called upon to answer to the Aschbishop of Canterbury's Court. To the 10th and 11th clauses of this Bill also he entertained great objec tion. The 10th clause provided that if the Judge of the Arches' Court should certify that a case was improper to be proceeded with, the Bishop of the diocese ill which the case arose should enter a nolle prosequi ; but the Bishop would have nothing to do with the prosecution, and was he then, at the command of the Judge, to enter a nolle prosequi w hen he never had been prosecutor? He appealed to Noble and Learned Lords whe ther such a thing had ever been heard of? The absurdity of it was palpable. But, even if this Bill were as much in accord ance with the discipline of the Church of Christ and the spirit of British law as it was, in fact, discordant with both, be should still oppose it on grounds of public policy, for a more mis chievous measure he could hardly conceive. He asked whe ther it was possible to devise any measure which could more effactually tend to dissolve the connection between the Bishop and his clergy, than to take the clergy out of the jurisdic tion of the Bishop residing in their diocese, and place them in the hands of a Judge in the metropolis ? This was not a question of merely public interest, for private interests of the most important nature were involved in it. If he were differed shortly to characterise the practical tendency of this Bill, he should say that it would give impunity. to guilt, and rob innocence of its beat protection. He bail done now with the merits of the Bill itself; he would only offer an observation on the object of the measure. For what purpose had the Bill been introduced ? The preamble stated that the correction of clerks has been attended with delay, in convenience, and uncertainty; and that was the evil the Bill proposed to remedy. The Noble and Learned Lord was only to came That went the before Thatcase HouseoftLords,Court attention case fl the greatest an d b 'st Reformer this country ever saw, the Noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington), who was then Prime sio o n n' to report He Minister o f G eorge IV., and the Noble Duke did that which might hav e b een expected from such a man on such an occa- called o upon the upon the the best m ecclesiastical ean so f r e authorities medying thteo evilslet him k s now what was t h e state of the law, and he issued a Commis ac- knowledged to exist in the Ecclesiastical Courts. The death s C no o dv u e r r t g a n n dt the the b e most st mode m of ien remedying Geor ge IV . term i nated the labours of that Commission; but another was i ssue d , ' consisting of six Bishops, the Chief Justices o f t h e Ki ng ' s Bench and Common Pleas, the Chief en re tp e practitioners ion thee rs evil. both il. o i f i t temporal Com missioners a Baron , of th e E xc h equer, all the Judges of the Ecclesiastical and g ave themselves energy which bto entitledt heirim ecclesiastic a l l aw ; an d they were called on to tell their e rtan t t o t a a l s l k p w r i a th ise a , zeal, and industry, important they made such a Report as was not often made. And what was that Report ? He would read a passage With respect to the tribunal which we recommend, we may remark that it will restore to the Bishops that personal jurisdiction which they originally exercised, and which was altervrards delegated by them to their chancellors and officials. The doctrine of the canon law is, that although the trial of causes of certain descriptions may be properly entrusted to a lay Judge, to the Bishop himself belongs iniquisitio, correc. ti e , punitio, excessurum, sese amotio a beneficio. Agreeably to this principle, the power of deprivation is reserved by our canons to the Bishops in person : and the same principle seems to apply to the case of suspension. and to the infliction o f any other censure which may affect a Clergyman's spiritual functions "—p. 151. He only asked their Lordships to compare that declaration with the present Bill, which violated every principle there laid down. In 1834 his late Majesty's Ministers concurred in a measure, which, however, was not brought forward. In 183 G a new legislator appeared in the field. The Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack brought in a Bill exactly of the same nature as the preceding Bills.—( Hear, hear.) Was that Bill opposed ? No ; it reached a third reading, and was passsed by the unanimous vote of the House. It passed on the 2d Au gust, about a week later than this time. It, however, was ton late for the Bill to be proceeded with in the other House, and accordingly it was suffered to drop without even a first read ing. I n ma did the Noble and Learned Lord renew his Bill ? No ; and not until June, in'the present year, was one word whispered on the subject by the Noble and Learned Lord. The measure had not been elaborated or put into any shap e . No, it was a perfect Minerva. It had sprung at once from the head of the originator, entire and perfect in all its pests. On seeing the Bill he had written to a Right Rev. Prelate, saying that it was not consistent with the principles of the Church of Christ. Three days after he found that the Bill had been read a second time, and that it was to be com mitted the next day. In consequence of this he travelled nearly all night to be in the House to oppose the committal. He rather thought that their Lordships woeld unanimously eteree with him when he moved, as he now should, that the Bill be read that day six months.—( Hear, hear.) The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY said that if their Lordships were to be influenced by hard and specious words, and invidious insinuatio n s , he was certain that the fate of the Bill would be at once decided. The Right Reverend Prelate had p iid him (the Archbishop of Canterbury) com pliments which he was aware he did not deserve, and for le s Ni g h t Reverend Friend he had said every thing that was just and right, and to the very eminent Judge that presided Over the Admiralty the Right Reverend Prelate had given his due in some. respect, though at the same time he had insinuated, to his (the Archbishop of Canterbury's) great re gret—because, from his person II knowledge, he knew it to be hufounded—that the Reverend Judge's faculties were im oeired by his advanced age. The attacks of the Right Rev. Prelate had not been confined merely to that Judge; be had attacked the highest authority in the House —the Lord Chan c .11or; and upon what ground he (the Archbishop of Can terb Ty) could not tell, unless it was that the Noble and Leareed Lord had permitted the Bill to emanate from other eersons, and not from himself. He (the Archbishop of Can terbury) scorned to shelter himself under the protection of others, for he was always ready and willing to take upon him self the whole responsibility of any measure that he might think beneficial to the Church. There had been two meet ings of Bishops on the question, and these meetings were both numerous ly attended. The Right Rev. Pratte honour e d one with his attendance, and he then objected to the mature proposed, but certainly net in such strong terms of reprobation as those he had used this evening. Another Right Rev. Prelate objected to the Bill because he was satiafied with the working of his own Court. He ( the Archbishop of Canter bury) did hope that their Lordships would not give any . on 3 of the Right Rev. Prelat e with weight to the ahse l i re spect to an withintertereece the inherent rig h ts o f the Church. The Bill applied to a perfectly diff erent state of t h e time when the Church was an i n d ependent things . At and unconnected with the State, the wh o l e o f the suC.ety, duCted by its own officers, Th e Bi sho business wa s can . • transacted every thing through 1113 r. By th e p re _ p sent Chanctleen, mo d e o f proceeding any pasty might appeal to all the Courts in every incidental matter. Now, this was an incon venieece from which they were desirous of relieving the Church. The consequence of continuing the pre. Rent 'stem would be, time total inefficiency of ecele sieeticA discipline. The clergy were not apprehensive of the Bill, and he would answer for it that there was not a re. soectable clergyman in England who was apprehensive of ever appearing before any of those Courts. The clergy were very much oppose] to one provision of the Bill of 1836, which pro vided that clergymen should serve as a Jury on their fellow clergy. The Commissioners had certainly recommended that measure ; but when the Bill was drawn out it was considered not only objecionahle in many respects, but that in practice it would be really impracticable. As the jurisdiction of the pro. posed Court would extend over the whole of Englan I and \Vales. there could he no question with respect to local juries eneians, which he admitted were highly objectionable. With reference to expense, all it was necessary for him to say was, that as there welsh' be a great diminution of appeals, there would also be a great reduction of the expense of pros ecedieg,s under this Bill. It was a shame to think that the present state of things should have so long existed. His nelv object, he could assure their Lordships, was to remedy that which he coesidered an abuse, and in t h e performance of this duty he could a- v say that he would not shrink from any odium or respon -Ally which such miirepresenta tit= as he had heard from his Right Rev. Friend that night !night bring upon him and the authors of this Bill. The Right Rev. Prelate stated to their Lordships that this Bill would take away from the Blshopx the authority of the forum domes. ticum. He said also, that if it were carrid he would not resort co its`provisions ; but that, an the contrary, he would depend ,hogether on th e exerc i se o f t h at s pi r itual power which be. lone, d to the superior heads of the Church ; that ho would rely for the obedience of the clergy on their canonical oath, and epocal to a tribunal higher than any that human power could institute. He (the Archbishop of Canterbury), must, however, deny that this Bill would in any way interfere with the thrum domesticum. It would leave that wetter precisely as it stood ; and, even should it pass, every Bishop would have the 'sa , tt power of calling the clergy of his diocese beforehim that he now possessed. This Bill would not divest them of a particle that passer ; but, on the contrary, so tar from weakening, it would strengthen the power in this particular with which the Bishop s were invested, by giving a shorter appeal than at re.:i . ett. existed. The Right Rev. Prelate bad misrepresented the Bill iu inch a way that - hi scarcely knew whttior he had ens..vered ail the p:nnts to which the Right Rev. l'a-el,te advert, d or not ; but with respect to hisobkc'ion to the claus. . for suspending the Clergy against whom complaints ca,,,t /nab, during the investigation, he (the Archbishop of Canter bunt) had pr..pared a clause which he thought would get rid of all difficulty on this head. He did not agree %Hi hi., Right Rev. Friend in what he had said in reference to the re rrifeal of causes to the Arches' Court, or as to the necessity of the Bishop to pronounce sentence of degradat ion. , The Most Reverend t".7late r in conclusion, expresse d his that their Lordships wouL.4 five their assent to the third read in of this Bill. Most Reverend Thl Bishop of EXETER wished to set t". l- te Prelate righettn riti or two points. The Most I..everend pre late said that it was irepotsible to prevent causes froni be:ng , brought down fr o m the iiiotetait Courts to the Arcnes Courts, but he (the Bishop of Exeter) said distinctly that it was. He had made application to the Chancellor of his dio cese oil the subject, and from him he learned that Instead of the removal bring e± debilojustiticr, it was in point of tact, only ex gratin. Such *as the opinion on which he had always acted, and in proof of this he mentioned a case in which he had refused to comply with the wishes of the parties who wished to remove it. With respect to the necessity of the Bishop going to pronounce the sentence of degradation, he contended that such a necessity would exist, The Archbishop of CA NTE :LOUR Y—Not under this Bill. The Bishop of EXETER said it would not be in the power of the Bishop to pronounce sentence withC!lt coming up. At present, if the decision of degradation were not i;Tettled from, the Bishop proceeded to pronounce sentence himseif; but if it were appealed from, and subsequently confirmed, then he had to go to his own diocesan Court to pronounce sentence. This he believed to be the state of the law ; but he lit@ no right to argue further, and he would not do so. Lord BROUG HAM fully concurred in what the Most Rev. Prelate had said as to the motives which had actuated him in his advocacy of this measure. No one on earth who either knew or heard of the Most Rev. Prelate could doubt for a single moment his purity, or that he was wholly uninflu enced by anything like party motives on this or any other occasion. It was clear now that the Most Rev. Prelate was wrong in 1832, 1833, and 1835, and sill more virong in 1836, when this subject was fully discussed in their Lordships' House. His change of sentiments proved that he ought to have agreed with them in 1832, 1833, 1835, and 1836, but with respect to his speech that night, he must be allowed to say that there was not the shadow of argument in what had fallen from the Most Reverend Prelate against the report of the Commissioners, or the measures introduced by the Noble Duke opposite and the Government of Lord Grcy, for carrying the recommendations of that report into effect. The difference between those measures and the present consisted in this, that they proposed a remedy, but this Bill gave no re medy at all. A good deal of ecclesiastical irony had been introduced into this debate, and when the Right Reverend Prelate mentioned the case of Mr. Frees, which had cost r 1,5001., the Most Reverend Prelate turned round and asked did he mean that such a state of things should not be re viewed ? There could be no doubt that such a state of things was bad, and that it ought to be remedied ; but then the ques tion was, would this Bill be a remedy ? He contended that it would not, and that the proper remedy was that pro posed in the Bill of 1836. The Arches' Court was unques tionably a learned tribunal ; but in the Bill to which he ad verted assessors were to be appointed in the diocesan courts who would also be learned. This would get rid of the objec tion made against the local tribunals, and for his own part he thought that plan much better than bringing the whole of the business to Doctors' Commons. Vas it to be endured that every poor curate residing in Wales, Cumberland, and the Land's-end, perhaps, should be obliged to come up to the Arches' Court, when the matter could be so satiifacto , ily dis posed of in the way proposed by the Bill of 1816 ? Now, s. , e the consequences of this. If there were a disposition to abuse, this Bill would give the power to do so ; but if, on the contrary, the desire was to do good, this Bill would disable the parties from carrying out their intentions, because it would saddle them with enormous expenses. All proceedings must be bad at Doctors' Commons, and that, too, although it was well known that the Ecclesiastical Courts were not only the most expensive, but unsatisfactory and dilatory tribunals in the country. The Arches' Court was not only the worst possible jurisdiction, but, what was more, the Judge never saw the face of a witness. He must be permitted to say if they went on legislating in this way, they could not expect the confidence of the country, and he could not help adding, that he thought the Commis sioners had been treated in a most extraordinary manner by the authors of this Bill. The Commissioners, who were fifteen in number, ranked among them the highest names in the land for learning and wisdom, and the measure which they recom mended was that which he had presented, but which, in fact, had been drawn by themselves. In the Bill which he introduced all thei. recommendations were embodied. That Bill was not objected to, neither was a similar measure which had been brought forward by Sir F. Pollock in the House of Commons. The Bill of 1836 had passed all its stag-es in their Lordships' Hotus,', but what had Sir John Nichol' done? He had not only agreed to but signed the report of the Commissioners, of whom he was one. He had allowed 1832. 1833, 1835. 1836, and 1837 to pass without altering his opinion, but in 1838 a now light broke in upon him, and at the close of the present Session he wrote a letter, saying, that as objections had been raised to the provisions of the former Bill, he thought it would be better to depart from that which he and his fourteen colleagues had recommended. That was what Sir John Nicholl did. Before he did this should he not have consulted his colleagues—should he not have consulted Lord Chief Justice Tindal—should he not have consulted the Noble and Learned Lord opposite—but, above all, should be not have consulted Dr. Luahington, who was not only au eminent, Judge himself, but the author of a Report which Lord Tenterden had pronounced to be the atili•st that ever emanated from any body of Commissioners. He having read that Report fully concurred in all Lord Tenterdel had said of it. Those who agreed to this Bill would differ toto ewlo from all the recommendations of the Commissioners, and for that reason and the grounds he had stat-16e 3b4ntd . certainly vote against it. Now with respect to time. His Bill was said to be too late because it was not brought forward u n til the 2d of August, but could their Lordships, at this period of the Session, be expected to drag this measure through the dirt of frivolity and fickleness which it presented, merely because Sir John Nicholl sent a letter " 'Verbose et graudis e pistola venit ?" But what did it show—why, not a single reason for what it recommended. But even if their Lordships passed this Bill, the House of Commons would not. He was open to conviction, but he could not agree to this Bill, and, certainly, if ever he found Sir J. Nicholl recommending anything or urging any measure, he would say to him before he adopted it, " Sir John, I must pause, for, remember how you treated me in 1838, and what was your conduct from 1832 to 1836? In 1838 you altered your opinion without assigning a tittle of reason for so doing, and, therefore, I cannot join you in the chase after your own opinions. You must go to somebody else, Sir John "—( Laughter. ) The Bishop of LINCOLN said his Right Rev. Friend had asked their Lordships whether they would be parties to a m^a sure, the effect of which would be to divest the Bishops of the power of summoning before them, and pronounciag censure, on criminous c;erks. He denied that this measure would have any such effect, and as to the 2 , 1 clause of this Bill, he was satisfied it would have no such effect as his Rigl.t Rev. Friend had attributed to it. Lord WYNFOR.D recommended the with iriwal of this Bill for the present Session, as it was impossible its provisions could now be properly considered. There was one clause its the Bill to which he entertained the strongest objections. It established an appropriation of Church property for other than Church purpases, and he could not therefore understand how it could have the sanction of the Right Rev. Prelate. The Duke of WELLING lON said, my Lords, consider ing the importance of this subject—considering the late period of the Session_considering that this is the first occasion this House has had an opportunity of deliberat;rig on this impor tent question, and considering also the difference of opinion which prevails upon the Right Reverend Bench, I cannot but feel anxious that your Lordships should postpone the consideration of this Bill to a future day. My Lords, I conf ess that having listened with the greatest attention to the discuseion which .has just taken place on this 13111, I am 12ound to say that I have not heard a single answer given wLich I consider satisfactory to some of the important ohjec forts to it which have been stated by the Right Reverend Pre late who moved the postponement of the thir.l reading for six months. My Lords, Ino not think it is quite clear that after this Bill has passed, the filrum rhmestiewn t) which al lusion has been made by the Right Reverend Prelate., can continue to exist. It seems, my Lords, that this Bill has been framed in consequence of a letter received from one of the Commissioners under the Royal Commission issued to inquire into the subject ; but, however high the respect in which that individual was held, I must exTresi it 1:s my opi nion that your Lordships should agree to no measure in which the forum domesticum is not preserved. My Lords, I object strongly to the clause to which my Noble and Learned Friend has adverted. It may, perhaps, be reasonable and proper to provide out of the benefices for the payment of charges of prosecutions of delinquent clerks ; but then I think that should only be adopted in the last instance, after ail other means of obtaining payment from those by whom that payment ought to be made had been exhausted. The LORI) CHANCELLOR said that the ju•iidi.:tion which they contemplated etehlishing by this Bill would re move the difficulties in the way of correcting the abuses of the Ecclesiastical Courts. From the sanction which the prin ciples involved in it had received, lie not only hoped that it would pass into a law, but that the schema which it proposed Would make satisfactory provision for the discipline of the Church. It, however, appeared that there were strong ob jections to it, anti that it was unpalaPahle to many of their Lordships. lie was atixiolis to give the best wsista ,- ice in his power to remedy the acknowledged evil, and he thought the plan now under their Lordships' consideration would effect that object without injury to any one, by providing a better jurisdiction than now existed. While it got rid of the Dio cesan Courts it would improve the Ecclesiastical Courts, and, although bringing it forward had subjectvd him to vitupera tion, he was willing to take ell the responsibility which it might incur upon himself. The Noble Duke had truly stated that this was a subj ec t of importance as well as of difficulty. With respect to the recommendations of the Commissioners, he be. lieved that no one now adhered to them. If they had been adopted at the time, they might been an improvement; but now the case was different, and the real case their Lordships had to decide was, whether th^y would allow the resent state of things to continue or nut ? Lord BROUGHAM shortly explained; after which The Archbishop of C ANTE RBUR Y should not. press the Bill on the present occasion, as the sense of the House appeared to be opposed to it. The amendment was then carried without a division. On the m >Lon of the Earl . of WICKLOW, the Affirma tions Bill was read a second tine, and ordered to be COnir raitterd tcator:.-ow• SCOTCH PRISONS BILL. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a eete;ort ;rere county of Ross against the Scotch Prisons Bill, On the Order of the Day for going into Committee Ott thin Bill, Lord BROUGHAM stated various objections wbich he entertained to the principle and details of the measure. mei which, if not corrected before the third reading of the Bill, hee should certainlyvote against it at that stage. The Duke of B UCCLE UCH thought it would to eet'es to have the Bill committed that day three months, and he should therefore propose an amendment to that effect. The Duke of RICHMOND hoped the Noble Duke would withdraw his amendment, and propose instead that the Bill be referred tort select Committee. Lord B ROLIG HAM also hoped the Bill would be referred tee a select Committee, and he would give his attendance day by day. Lord WHA RNCL JFFE particularly objected to the clause respecting asssessateete, and would thereore suAtort the amendment. The Earl of MINTO conee;eed the necessity of a better system was so apparent and urgent, that any incovenience which might arise therefrom ought to form tee impediment to an immediate alteration, and pleaded the protenjetY of going into Committee to do something effective, in co-operation with the efforts making in the House of Commons. The Earl of HA D DING TON supported the amendment. The House then divided, and there appeared-- Contents Non-contents Majority The House went into Committee. The Duke of RICHMOND was willing to allow sufficient time to consider and prepare a good Bill in conjunction with the House of Commons, and therefore would propose, with this view, that a Select Committee should be now appointed to take the eubjeci into full consideration, as the House had affirmed the poiet that the reformation of the Scottish prisons should be forthwith proceeded in. Duke of Richmond's motion for a Select Committee WV After a short conversation the House resumed , a nd the for mally made and agreed to. THE TURPENTINE. PENALTIES BILL. On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR this Bill was read a third time and passed. SLAVERY VESSELS BILL. On the motion of Lord BROUGHAM this Bill vas reed a third time and passed. IRISH POOR-LAW BILL. On the Order of the Day for taking into consideration be Commons' amendments on this Bill, The Duke of WELLINGTON said that there was only one amendment it:which he could not agree. He teliseded the amendment on the clause regarding the division of town lands. He, therefore, peoposed to their Lordships not to concur in that amendment. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE expressed his concurrevce in his opinion of the Noble Duke. The other amendments were then agreed to, sod-after some conversation between Viscount Melbourne, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Elienborough, and Lord Brougham. a conference with the Commons was appointed for te-morrow. THE SLAVE VESSELS BILL, The Earl of MINTO moved the third reading of this Bilk. Lord COLCHESTER said that it had been argued that the system of bounty, or head. money, was impolitic• because it did not accrue until the vessel hid her cargo of slaves en board, and, consequently, the greater part of the crime had been committed ; and that the system, consequently, had ex ercised an influence on the conduct of the officers upon the station, who had been charged with allowing the slave-veseet to embark her cargo of slaves, for the purpose of securing the head-money. If these remarks had been made merely theoretically, he sh ou ld not h ave f e l t it hi s duty to have troubled their Lordships ; but the language which the Noble and Learned Lord opposite had used on a for mer occasion appeared to him to convey a very serious insinuation against the officers of her Majesty's navy on that coast, because he had distinctly imputed to them that they had refrained from making any efforts to interrupt the slave ves sels in the course of loading. Now, there was no doubt that for a long period the cruisers did make no attempt eo capture the slaves until after they were laden; and, thereforo, to a casual observer, it might appear that they had been ac tuated by these motives ; but, then, that depended entirely on the assumption that they had some authority to take the ves sels without their cargo on board. If he proved that for a long period after the Legislature had granted the bounty, the cruisers had no authority to take the vessels until their cargoes were embarked, but, on the contrary, were strictly prohibited from so doing ; hut that, since they had received that autho rity, the captures of vessels without cargoes had been more frequent than that of vessels with cargoes, their Lordship; would see that he bad vindicated the officers in this service from the charge of a breach of duty. and still more from being actuated by mercenary motives. The Noble Lord then cited the opinion of Lord Stowell to show that under the general law of nations their crosiers had no right to interrupt the pro ceedings of the slave vessels, but that whatever right they had was acquired by treaties. Treaties had accordingly been entered into with Spain, Portugal, and other countries, by which a limited right of search was granted, and under which tribunals were erected for the purpose of trying the - legality of seizures. But there was an article in all these treaties which prohibited the seizure of any vessel until the slaves were ac tually on board ; and so strictly had that been construed that it had been held not sufficient to justify the capture, though the crew of the cruiscra might see the cargo of slaves landed. That view of the subject had been expressed by Lord Pal merston in certain instructions issued under Earl Grey's Go vernmeht. In conclusion he would express his surprise and regret that documents having been so long on the table of the House, the Noble and Learned Lord bad not taken more pains in looking into them, before he had come forward and brought such serious charges against gallant men, many of whom had been twenty years in the service. Lord iNfITO still conceived that the case against the navy rester upon spueut.ti., el,. tendency. not upon the fact. Ni one case of misconduct had been proved, and he repeated, he had never in the whole course of his official experience 'und one instance of any blame attaching to the officers on the African station, who also had a most painful and disgusting duty to perform, and in a most unbeelthy climate. As for tendency he must say that this was not decisive. An arrangement might be such as naturally to seem likei; to lead to wrong conduct, and yet might not produce it in honourable minds. Thus the great emoluments and high station of the Noble and Learned Lord on . the Woolsack had a natural tendency to induce other members of the profession of the law not only to aspire at the office of Chancellor, but to attack the Government, in order to turn him out and take his place. But it did not by any means follow that men did attack the Government for this purpose and with this view. Lord BROUGHAM said he had always maintained that the tendency was quite decisive against •the head-money sys tem, en this plain ground, that it was either inoperative, and wholly useless, or, if not inoperative, mischievous. It could on ly c e ase to be hurtful by being useless. But he denied that he rested his case upon tendency. He showed, upon the evidence of those who had been on the omit, that cruizers stood out to sea to let the slave ship load. and to eatice them out—that is, to make them fill their lnlds with wretched creatures, torn by force or kid napped by fraud front their country, and then to snake them in their escape fling those poor victims overboard by scores to fa cilitate their flight from justice. This was his . ( Lord B.'s) case. To say that there was only a tendency, was, therefore, a mere shallow pretext. The intention of the head-money was executed, ail the tendency produced in the actual event of its natural and evil censequenees. Ile might have relied on the evidence of the travellers whom he had cited, but he disdained to do so when his own mind went along with their statements. He was of the same opinion, and the facts on which that rested were no longer disputed, for the Noble Earl ( Mines) himself admitted them, and so did the Noble B.iron ( Colches er. ) But there was one part of the Neble Earl's speech (!!into) which he at first was put• zled to comprehend. When he found him so far off from the Al. ieen coast, as to be. tottering about the Woolsack, and descanting, upon the emoluments and powers of the Great Seal, he could not fur the lire of him conceive what the Noble Earl was after. At first, he only thought this portion of his speech extremely stepid—(he spoke it with all respect)—very flat and tedious, and insipid, and at so late an hour, some what of the most tiresome—but he soon perceived that it was all the while sarcasm in disguise. We had heard of " Wei- in disguise," and this, it seemed, was a Wit in diseuise"--so thick a disguise, indeed, that he questioned if all their Lordships for whose behoof it was in tended, hail as yt t pierced through to come at it. He (Lord Brougham) however, had. It seemed as if the Noble Earl should say to the Noble Baron ( Colchester) " I have no means of helping eou in the way of fact ; and as for argu ing, I am no great. hand at that, but my wit is much at your service ; at sarcasm I am no bed hand-1 have never before let this out, but the truth is my talent lied that way, and you shall see how merry. and cutting, and sarcastic a creature I can be to serve you." So then his humour was this—the office of Chancellor is a very tempting prize to play for.—great gain —vast rank—immense power—all this has a tendency to make men attack the bolder, and his colleagues, in order to turn them out--that is to say (for this meaning was quite plain, and here lay the w h o l e stin g ).—•' You ( Lord Brougham) might naturally be sur v osrd to attack the Got ernment for the sake of turning them out and clutching the Great Seal—you never tried what it w .s like befere—you must naturally be desirous of rising to the top o f your profession, which you have been so long looking up to, and so you attack us in order to reach it." Now he (Lord Brougham) at once admitted that the temptation of that exalted station was great to honourable minds. The emolu•nents. of his Noble and Learned Friend's place were, of c torte, nothing—they were like the head-money to the cruizers_thry care d not a straw about t h eir way it lay, and they took it because they could noth 611 ;h d e ol la s ; S' his Noble and Learned Friend di cl Which he cared not at all for, putting it in his pocket. But only he could b y not welt avoid , to have great power— s the entire confidence 'of to bring, his predecessors, y h by igh h P u ' t il t eFtrca honour. nr°d g ta b ht u ie r ° : n e a t a h e m r eas as u ! e rY p — ow t . u ers a h Zt rii h n o il o u ia t t:w o c h n re i , ch it is tot felt measures of u reform, in Church and as any minds—to carry all the deeiredtof bring in important . Bills for amend whorhielAtobed above all , or improving the Court he presided efonreehoisf bthaevirn.egalbmeentin i S n t ri at t e he , end have them carrie d an d _not rejected by majorities of of OB to 36—to leave the jurispru d ence his eye* of future ages by the improved, illustrateand men on t n h a e m b e eitnt theer measures which he had instituted of wise, enlightened, sod enlarged the country had enabled him to carry-tbee policy, its olFce measures whkh the confidence of Parlia gretoattand men uo con fessed, were attlib4Ws othig Nadi *d Leartentz - Lend ;td aja ar, irru the of cur ...... aye :iye let. ion the ent 45 0 Is I be 11% :ge he is 75$ all '